Appellants: Microfibres Inc

Vs.

Respondent: Girdhar and Co. and Ors.

Decided on 13.01.2006

Facts: The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the USA and is stated to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of upholstery fabrics directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. The brand name of the plaintiff is stated to be Microforms. The business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique and original artistic works which are conceptualized and drawn/printed by either its employees or other persons who have assigned the copyright in the works to the plaintiff. More than 1000 people are stated to be employed by the plaintiff and a global annual turnover is stated to be more than $ 200 million. The plaintiff's product under the brand name Microforms is stated to be sold in more than hundred countries including India and has wide presence in the manufacture and sale of synthetic nylon flox fabric and velvet upholstery fabric.

The plaintiff claims to have extensive international reputation with manufacturing bases and operations in several countries of the world and there are more than 250 brands of Microforms which are apparently sold in India. However, during the course of arguments, the plaintiff concentrated the claim in respect of some of these artistic works in respect of which it was alleged that the defendants had violated the copyright.

In May 2002, the plaintiff discovered that defendant no. 2 was manufacturing & marketing upholstery fabric with the help of defendant no. 1 as the distributor which infringed the copyright of the plaintiff. Such sale is also alleged to amount to passing off the goods of the defendant as if they were the goods of the plaintiff. The defendant's goods are alleged to be an inferior and the use of such an artistic work of the plaintiff upon upholstery fabric is unauthorized and dishonest. As no consent of the plaintiff proved.

The plaintiff claims exclusive rights in respect of the copyrighted work in view of provisions of Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act and the infringement of the defendants is stated to be covered under the provisions of Section 51 of the Copyright Act.

Held: nature of protection is different for an artistic work under Act which is for the lifetime of author/creator + 60 years. This is not so in case of commercial exploitation and period is much lesser - Configuration was made only with the object of putting it to industrial/commercial use. Therefore paintings, sculptors and such works of art which are sought to be specifically excluded from Act - Protection is not available under Act. The plaintiff is not registered proprietor of designs under Act - In terms of Section 11 of Act, when a design is registered, the registered proprietor of design has copyright in design for 10 years, which could be extended by another 5 years. It shows that plaintiff was actually required to do was to register designs which the plaintiff has failed to do. Patterns and designs of the plaintiff were capable of registration both under Act, 1911 and new Act, 2000 and plaintiff failed to do so with result that protection is not available to the plaintiff which would have arisen if they had been so registered. No evidence has been led to show as to what is nature of sales in India - There is no doubt about identical nature of designs, but the plaintiff has failed to establish any case of passing off and damages arising therefrom. It is not a case of suppression of fact. No basis to conclude that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to make out a case of having completed requisite formalities in law to avail the benefit of exclusive use of patterns and designs. Hence, suit dismissed